An Application of Brehm’s Emotion Intensity Theory

Abstract

In two studies, we examined the effect of different degrees of attraction reciprocation
on ratings of attraction toward a potential romantic partner. Undergraduate college
student participants imagined a potential romantic partner who reciprocated a low
(reciprocating attraction one day a week), moderate (reciprocating attraction three
days a week), high (reciprocating attraction five days a week), or unspecified degree
of attraction (no mention of reciprocation). Participants then rated their degree
of attraction toward the potential partner. The results of Study 1 provided only partial
support for Brehm’s emotion intensity theory. However, after revising the high reciprocation
condition vignette in Study 2, supporting Brehm’s emotion intensity theory, results
show that a potential partners’ display of reciprocation of attraction acted as a
deterrent to participants’ intensity of experienced attraction to the potential partner.
The results support the notion that playing moderately hard to get elicits more intense
feelings of attraction from potential suitors than playing too easy or too hard to
get. Discussion of previous research examining playing hard to get is also re-examined
through an emotion intensity theory theoretical lens.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.

Social psychologists have long recognized the importance of reciprocation of attraction
for the development of interpersonal relationships (Finkel & Baumeister, 2010). In general, people like others who like them back (Kenny, 1994). When informed that another person likes or dislikes him or her, individuals reciprocate
with equal like or dislike (Lehr & Geher, 2006; Whitchurch, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2011) manifested through differential displays of behavior in interpersonal interactions
(Curtis & Miller, 1986), such as acting more friendly and warm (Stinson, Cameron, Wood, Gaucher, & Holmes, 2009). Similarly, people indicate that reciprocation of attraction is a key determinant
of romantic attraction for another person (Peretti & Abplanalp, 2004; Sprecher, 1998). Learning that a potential romantic partner reciprocates one’s attraction leads
to increased attraction for the potential partner (Greitemeyer, 2010). People expect their attraction to be reciprocated (Back et al., 2011), and experience negative emotions (i.e., distress) and uncertainty when reciprocation
is withheld (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993). The expectation of reciprocation, and the negative reactions experienced when one’s
displays of attraction are not reciprocated, question the popular notion that withholding
reciprocation (i.e., “playing hard to get”) is an advantageous dating strategy.

Initial investigations of the hard to get phenomenon suggest that people are attracted
to potential partners who are selective in their dating choices (Matthews, Rosenfield, & Stephan, 1979; Walster, Walster, Piliavin, & Schmidt, 1973). First, one explanation for the hard to get phenomenon resides in the distinction
between dyadic reciprocity (liking reciprocated between two individuals) versus generalized
reciprocity (a non-specific liking for others in general) (Kenny, 1994). When examining speed-daters, individuals who express romantic desires toward a
specific person receive more reciprocation than if they display romantic attraction
to multiple potential partners (Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon, & Ariely, 2007). In other words, people are attracted to potential partners who are selective in
their reciprocation of attraction. A second explanation suggests that uncertainty
about the other’s attraction leads to increased thoughts about the other person, and
subsequently greater attraction (Whitchurch et al., 2011). A third explanation of why people like potential partners who play hard to get
follows from Brehm’s (1999) emotion intensity theory.

Jack Brehm is famously remembered for his theoretical contributions to cognitive dissonance
and his theory of psychological reactance. However, he also proposed a lesser known,
but similarly impressive, theory of emotional and motivational intensity (Wright, 2011). Brehm’s (1999) emotion intensity theory posits that emotions, affect, and mood are motivational
states that urge behavior or adaptation toward a goal, and one’s degree of emotional
intensity is affected by the difficulty in obtaining one’s goal. When one’s goals
are inhibited (termed deterrents), one’s degree of emotional intensity (and related
motivation) interacts with the magnitude of the deterrent to the goal in a cubic function.
When no deterrents are present (i.e., difficulty of obtaining the goal is unknown
or unspecified), the intensity of an emotion experienced equals the potential intensity
of that emotion and represents the importance of obtaining one’s goal (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

The effect of deterrence on the intensity of emotion.

When there is a low amount of deterrence, one’s emotional intensity is low because
of the small amount of effort needed to obtain the goal. When there is a moderate
level of deterrence, the intensity of emotion rises to a point where the effort needed
to obtain the goal equals the degree of importance of the goal. If the degree of deterrence
continues to increase, then one’s emotional intensity and related motivation will
drop because the goal appears unattainable. While no research has directly tested
Brehm’s emotion intensity theory with respect to romantic attraction and attraction
reciprocation, a number of studies provide evidence suggesting that attraction to
a potential partner varies in a cubic function depending on the degree of deterrence
to feeling romantic attraction.

Wright, Toi, and Brehm (1984) asked male participants to rate the attractiveness of a potential lab partner after
they were informed that to work with the person they would need to pass a memory test
that varied in difficulty (easy, moderately difficult, hard). Participants rated the
female assistant as more attractive when the test was moderately difficult compared
to easy and hard. Miron, Knepfel, and Parkinson (2009) manipulated the importance of romantic partner flaws to find participants’ degree
of romantic attraction varied in line with the cubic function. Roberson and Wright (1994) manipulated men’s perception of difficulty (unspecified, easy, moderate, impossible)
of persuading a woman to choose him as a coworker. Participants’ rating of interpersonal
appeal (e.g., potential coworker is nice, desire to work with person) followed the
cubic function. Wright and Contrada (1986) varied the selectiveness of a potential partner (non-selective, moderately selective,
extremely selective in dating partners). Participants desired dating the potential
partner who was moderately selective in their dating choices compared to non-selective
or overly selective. While each of the above studies employed a different type of
deterrent to feeling positively toward another person (e.g., memory test, partner
flaws, selectiveness of potential partner), the results consistently show that attraction
(and interpersonal appeal) is highest when the deterrent to obtain the goal is moderate,
compared to low and high.

Although numerous researchers have sought to explain why playing hard to get is an
advantageous dating strategy (Eastwick et al., 2007; Kenny, 1994; Matthews et al., 1979; Walster et al., 1973; Whitchurch et al., 2011; Wright & Contrada, 1986), no studies directly test whether a potential partner’s degree of reciprocation
of attraction influences the intensity of attraction. Researchers suggest that there
exist different types (e.g., love, romantic obsession; see Graham, 2011) and dimensions (e.g., physical, social; see McCroskey, McCroskey, & Richmond, 2006) of attraction. However, regardless of whether attraction is an emotional state or
an affective component of an attitude concerning another person, Brehm (1999) posits that the arousal of attraction (i.e., urge to get better acquainted with the
object of attraction) should vary in intensity in a cubic function with the degree
of deterrence toward the emotion, affect, or the mood’s motivational goal. In other
words, reciprocity of attraction may act as a signal to a potential mate the degree
of difficulty in obtaining the goal of the emotional/affective arousal. In effect,
Brehm’s emotion intensity theory may explain the underlying mechanism of the playing
hard to get phenomenon.

In two studies, we asked participants to imagine that they are attracted to a coworker
who reciprocated the attraction one (high deterrence), three (moderate deterrence),
or five (low deterrence) days a week, or no information about reciprocation was given
(unspecified deterrence) prior to rating their attraction toward the potential partner.
We operationalize reciprocity of attraction as the amount of positive attention shown
toward the participant. Following Brehm’s emotion intensity theory, the potential
partner’s degree of reciprocity of attraction will influence participants’ intensity
of attraction (liking and desire to be close to the other person) and related urge
to obtain the goal (relationship formation) in a cubic function. Specifically, when
no information is presented regarding reciprocity of attraction (control condition),
participants’ reported attraction should be high and represent the potential intensity
of affect and importance of the goal. Attraction should decrease when the potential
partner displays a high degree of reciprocation (low deterrence to form a relationship),
increase when the potential partner displays a moderate degree of reciprocated attraction
(deterrence equals the importance of forming a relationship), and decrease when the
potential partner displays a low degree of reciprocation (high deterrence to forming
a relationship). In other words, a potential romantic partner that signals he or she
is too easy (high reciprocation) or too hard (low reciprocation) to form a relationship
with will elicit less attraction than a person who is playing “moderately” hard to
get.

Participants (N = 197, 53.8% women; Mage = 23.77, SD = 7.53) received partial course credit toward their psychology course requirement
at Texas A&M University-Commerce. Participants indicated their racial/ethnic category
as European American (65.5%), African American (16.2%), Hispanic (8.6%), Multiracial
(5.1%), Asian/South Pacific Islander (2.5%), Indigenous Peoples (2%), and 60.4% were
in a romantic relationship at the time of the study. Only participants who indicated
a heterosexual orientation on a prescreen measure were eligible to participate. Participants
were randomly assigned to read one of four vignettes: (1) no mention of reciprocation
of attraction, (2) high reciprocation, (3) moderate reciprocation, and (4) low reciprocation.
Participants then rated their degree of attraction and reported demographic information.
The vignettes and measures were adapted such that male participants completed the
study concerning a female target, and female participants completed the study concerning
a male target.

Participants were asked to imagine that they are single and attracted to a single,
opposite sex, coworker who they greet at work each morning (e.g., “Every day that
you arrive you go to the break room for a cup of coffee. An attractive coworker arrives
at the same time and sees you there every morning. Every morning you try to start
a conversation with her/him”). Thus, in all conditions participants were asked to
imagine that they were physically attracted to an opposite sex coworker and were motivated
to converse with her or him. No other information was given in the control condition
(i.e., the degree of reciprocation of attraction is unspecified). In the low reciprocity
condition the coworker engages in conversation one day a week (e.g., “About one day
a week s/he engages in a great conversation with you. During the conversation s/he
smiles and laughs at your jokes. The other four days of the week s/he does not talk
to you, but rather goes straight to work”). In the moderate reciprocity condition
the coworker engages in conversation three days a week. In the high reciprocity condition
participants are informed that the coworker engages in conversation five days a week,
and are further told that s/he “hangs around” the participant’s cubicle and walks
with the participant to her or his car.

Following the vignette, participants completed a 12-item (e.g., “I am attracted to
this person,” “S/he would be pleasant to be with,” “This person is likable”) measure
of attraction to the coworker (α = .94). The measure used a 7-point Likert-type response
scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Lastly, participants indicated their age, gender, ethnicity, and relationship status.

To examine the effect of the manipulation of reciprocation of attraction on participants’
attraction to the coworker, we conducted a one-way ANOVA and a priori polynomial contrasts.1 Contrary to our prediction, we did not find a significant cubic effect on attraction
toward the coworker, F(1, 193) = 0.56, p = .456, MSE = 1.12 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Study 1, participants’ reported attraction to the coworker as a function of the degree
of reciprocated attraction.

The purpose of Study 1 was to examine the effect of a potential partner’s degree of
reciprocation of attraction on attraction for a potential partner. Supporting our
predictions, participants indicated a high intensity of attraction when the deterrent
was unspecified (control) and in the moderate deterrent condition, and reported less
attraction in the moderate compared to low reciprocity condition. The high intensity
of attraction expressed by participants in the control condition shows the vignette
was successful in eliciting attraction, and the less intense rating of attraction
in the low reciprocation condition shows that a small degree of reciprocation is successful
in deterring felt attraction. However, the predicted cubic effect was not significant
as participants in the high reciprocity of attraction condition rated their attraction
higher than expected. We suspect the vignette in the high reciprocity condition was
insufficient in conveying the notion that the coworker was displaying a high degree
of reciprocation of romantic attraction (i.e., easy to get). The high reciprocity
vignette described behaviors enacted solely in the workplace and may have been interpreted
as cues to form a work related friendship rather than a romantic partnership. To test
our notion, we increased the displays of attraction reciprocated by the potential
partner in the high reciprocation of attraction condition in Study 2.

The purpose of Study 2 is to examine the effect of varying levels of reciprocated
attraction with a revised vignette in the high reciprocity condition. Identical to
Study 1, we predict a cubic effect of reciprocation of attraction on participants’
ratings of attraction to the potential partner.

Participants (N = 186, 53.8% women; Mage = 22.26, SD = 6.87) received partial course credit toward their psychology course requirement
at Texas A&M University-Commerce. Participants indicated their racial/ethnic category
as European American (55.4%), African American (25.3%), Hispanic (11.3%), Multiracial
(3.8%), Asian/South Pacific Islander (2.7%), Indigenous Peoples (1.6%), and 50% were
in a romantic relationship. Participants followed the same procedure as Study 1. The
high reciprocity condition vignette was edited to include further displays of attraction
by the coworker, including: joins in conversations with other coworkers in which the
participant is engaged, includes her/himself on work projects, and calls the participant
at night at his or her home to talk. The additional displays of attraction by the
coworker were added to convey the notion that the coworker is inserting her/himself
in additional aspects of the participant’s work and home life. The additional statements were meant to more clearly convey the notion
that the potential partner is interested in a romantic relationship. Participants
then rated their attraction (α = .95) and completed demographic items.

The purpose of Study 2 was to examine the effect of varying levels of reciprocated
attraction with a revised high reciprocation condition vignette. After amplifying
displays of reciprocated attraction, participants showed lower ratings of attraction
toward the potential partner compared to participants exposed to the unspecified and
moderate deterrence vignettes. As predicted, participants’ attraction for the potential
partner followed a cubic function depending on the partners’ degree of reciprocation
of attraction.

The purpose of the present set of studies was to examine the effect of reciprocity
of attraction as a deterrent to romantic attraction. Consistent with Brehm’s emotion
intensity theory, we predicted that the intensity of participants’ attraction would
change depending on the degree of reciprocity displayed by a potential partner. The
predicted effect was not supported in Study 1. However, after revising the manipulation
of high reciprocity in Study 2, we found the hypothesized cubic function between degree
of reciprocity and participants’ attraction for a potential romantic partner.

Brehm (1999) suggests that the intensity of emotion, affect, or mood experienced by individuals
will vary as a cubic function with the amount of deterrence to feeling the emotion,
affect, or mood. Beyond Miron et al. (2009), who show that the importance of a partner’s flaws can serve as a deterrent to romantic
attraction, prior studies show indirect support for the notion that attraction for
a potential partner varies depending on the degree of deterrence to felt attraction.
The present paper is the first empirical test of degree of attraction reciprocation
as a deterrent to romantic attraction. For example, varying the magnitude of deterrents
such as a memory test (Wright et al., 1984), persuading another person to choose oneself as a lab mate (Roberson & Wright, 1994), and the selectiveness of a potential partner (Wright & Contrada, 1986) have been found to influence the intensity of attraction toward another person.

When no information regarding a partner’s reciprocation of attraction was presented,
participants expressed a high intensity of attraction. In Study 2, participants exposed
to the coworker displaying a high degree of reciprocation expressed a low intensity
of attraction, participants exposed to the potential partner displaying a moderate
degree of reciprocation expressed a high level of attraction, and participants exposed
to the potential partner showing little reciprocation expressed a low intensity of
attraction. Thus, although it may seem obvious that when the target of one’s romantic
attempts reciprocates that interest one would feel attracted to the other person,
if the potential partner shows too much interest the degree of attraction declines.
While participants expressed a high intensity of attraction in the high reciprocity
condition in Study 1, the hypothesized decrease of attraction from the control to
high reciprocation of attraction condition was demonstrated in Study 2. The difference
in ratings of attraction in the high reciprocation condition between Study 1 and 2
suggest that a potential partner’s reciprocation of attraction should clearly signal
a desire on the part of the potential partner to form a romantic (rather than workplace
friendship) relationship. However, further research is needed to ensure that participants
perceived the coworker as expressing a clear romantic interest in the high reciprocation
conditions in Study 1 and 2. The present results support Brehm’s emotion intensity
theory, and build upon past research by showing reciprocation of attraction from a
potential partner can also serve as a deterrent to feeling romantically attracted
to another person. The present results also hold implications for understanding why
withholding reciprocity of attraction can benefit relationship formation.

A wealth of empirical findings shows that reciprocating romantic attraction influences
interpersonal relationships (Back et al., 2011; Greitemeyer, 2010; Peretti & Abplanalp, 2004; Sprecher, 1998; Whitchurch et al., 2011). Because the reciprocation of romantic attraction is desired and expected from potential
partners (Back et al., 2011), researchers have sought to explain why playing hard to get (i.e., withholding attraction)
is a beneficial dating strategy (Walster et al., 1973). Brehm’s emotion intensity theory, supported by Study 2 results, explain the underlying
mechanism regarding reciprocity and attraction. Eastwick and colleagues (2007) showed that playing easy to get (expressing attraction to multiple people) is negatively
related to reciprocation of attraction, while playing moderately hard to get (expressing
attraction to specific people) is positively related to reciprocation of attraction.
Back and colleagues (2011) found similar results; women’s attraction to multiple men at a speed dating session
(i.e., playing easy to get) was unrelated to how many men chose her, while men who
chose many other potential partners were less likely to be chosen by other women.
In other words, playing easy to get was unrelated for women, and negatively related
for men, to reciprocation of attraction. However, both women and men who expressed
desire for specific potential partners (i.e., playing moderately hard to get) were
reciprocated in their attraction. Informed by Brehm’s emotion intensity theory and
the results of the present studies, people who view a potential partner as easy to
get elicit less attraction, while potential partners who are viewed as moderately
selective in their choice of dates elicit more attraction from potential partners.
Furthermore, as shown by Wright and Contrada (1986), being overly selective in choice of dating partners elicits less attraction. To
the extent that selectivity is a sign of a potential partner’s likelihood of reciprocating
one’s expressions of attraction, then the intensity of attraction to the potential
partner will vary in a cubic function with the degree of attraction that is reciprocated.
However, as we did not manipulate the selectivity of the partner’s choice, future
research is needed to examine if selectivity is signal or cue of reciprocation of
attraction. Other research examining reciprocity of attraction and playing hard to
get may also be explained by emotion intensity theory.

Whitchurch and colleagues (2011) informed female participants that four men had examined their Facebook profile and
rated their attraction to the participant. The four men were reported to either (1)
like the participant, (2) may have liked or rated the participant as average, or (3)
rated the participant as average. Results showed greater attraction when the men’s
feedback was uncertain (may have liked or rated the participant as average) compared
to when the feedback was positive (all like the participant) or negative (all rated
the participant as average). The authors suggested that the results were due to increased
thoughts about the men because of the uncertainty of their attraction to her. However,
the results can also be explained by Brehm’s emotion intensity theory. When participants
believed the feedback was uniformly positive (low deterrence), uncertain (moderate
deterrence), or negative (high deterrence), the degree of attraction followed an identical
pattern as those found in the present research. In other words, similar to the findings
in the present studies, the feedback regarding the potential partners’ attraction
to the participant served as a deterrent to attraction, and the ratings of attraction
followed the hypothesized cubic pattern. Together, the results of the present and
prior research on playing hard to get, and research examining real life speed dating
situations, support the notion that playing moderately hard to get is an advantageous
dating strategy because the moderate degree of deterrence elicits a higher intensity
of attraction (compared to too easy or too hard to get).

While the present studies support past research and theory there are some noted limitations.
First, participants consisted of undergraduate college students. Older adults have
less motivation to make new friends evidenced by less frequent interactions with friends
(Carstensen, 1992), and less intense positive emotional experiences when interacting with new friends
compared to younger adults (Charles & Piazza, 2007). The results of the present studies may not be generalizable to older adults or
individuals in long lasting committed relationships because of a lack of importance,
motivation, or potential gain to enter new romantic relationships. Thus, caution is
warranted when generalizing to older adults. Second, participants may have responded
to the vignettes based on lay theories regarding dating styles and norms. Prior research
argues against this interpretation (Reysen, Landau, & Branscombe, 2012; Robinson & Clore, 2001). Vignettes can often elicit similar reactions to those exhibited in real life and
realistic laboratory studies. While the vignettes used in the present studies showed
results that are consistent with past realistic laboratory studies, and consistent
with real world dating situations, future research will benefit from examination of
reciprocity of attraction in real world settings. Third, future research should examine
alternative explanations of the obtained results. For example, participants may be
reacting to the loss of freedom to form a relationship (Brehm, 1966), making unfavorable character inferences about the potential partner in the high
and low reciprocation conditions (Wright & Contrada, 1986), or inferred that they were not attracted to the potential partner because they
were not currently in a relationship in the high reciprocity condition (Bem, 1972). Additionally, in Study 2, participants may have viewed the high reciprocation displayed
by the coworker as unrealistic, clingy, overzealous, or annoying. However, participants’
reactions to the displays of high reciprocation may represent lay explanations for
expressing a low degree of attraction to the coworker. Further future research is
needed to examine the reasons participants attribute to their low degree of attraction
for a potential partner that displays a high (vs. low) degree of reciprocation of
attraction.

As noted in the introduction, Brehm’s emotion intensity theory is the least recognized
among his contributions to psychology (Wright, 2011). However, his theory may explain a variety of phenomenon related to the degree of
interpersonal and romantic attraction felt toward others. Although in the present
paper we show that reciprocation of attraction is a deterrent to attraction, other
possible deterrents can also influence the degree of attraction to another person.
For example, Miron et al. (2009) shows that varying the importance of partners’ flaws can influence the intensity
of romantic attraction toward a mate. Future research may also explore whether other
dimensions and types of attraction (McCroskey et al., 2006) also vary in accordance with the degree of deterrence.

The present research showed a potential partners’ degree of reciprocation of attraction
affects attraction for a potential partner in a cubic function. The results support
Brehm’s (1999) emotion intensity theory, and explain why playing (moderately) hard to get is an
advantageous dating strategy. In line with prior research, participants were shown
to be more attracted to a potential partner when attraction was moderately reciprocated
compared to when the potential partner displayed too little, or too much, attraction.
The results suggest that individuals “turn off” or conserve emotional resources when
either too little (i.e., saving resources for another potential partner) or too much
(i.e., forming a relationship with the potential partner is easy or requires little
effort) attraction reciprocation is displayed by a potential partner. Overall, a greater
intensity of attraction is elicited when a potential partner reciprocates an optimal
degree of attraction, or plays moderately hard to get.

i) We also conducted analyses including participants’ gender and relationship status.
The variables did not show significant main effects or interact with the manipulation
(Studies 1 & 2). Thus, we present the results collapsed across participants’ gender
and current romantic relationship status.